Hacker News Reader

Comment by baddox | Hacker News Reader

> You can't, for example, run a tannery in your apartment.

I would prefer that you could, in the (perhaps unlikely) scenario that it was allowed by the terms of your rental agreement. If it's your own property, go right ahead.

> What's more, as a resident (and especially if I were an owner) I wouldn't want my building being a de facto hotel.

Many residents would probably agree, and if enough agree, then there's no reason why the property owner couldn't prohibit the practice in the rental agreements. I live in San Francisco, where airbnb is legal (as far as I know), yet my property owner explicitly prohibits "short term subleasing," effectively banning airbnb rentals. No law or government action required, no criminals made, no taxpayer-funded enforcement, and no problem.

View on HN

You cannot be serious. Just because you happen to own the property does not give you absolute rights. What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled.

The tannery example is pretty apt here - what right do you have to run a foul smelling eyesore right beside the property where I'm attempting to raise a family?

That should really depend on the contracts and negotiations between property owners, tenants, etc. Maybe you don't mind living next to that "eyesore" because it's much cheaper and you can afford private schooling for your children. Everything is a cost/benefit, and people may be willing to sacrifice one thing for another, so have a little empathy.

I think you missed the point of "externality": the people affected by the externality are not party to the negotiations.

In other words, when I buy the house next to yours, and from one day to the next, decide to use it to store decaying pig shit in the yard, or manufacture high explosives, all of a sudden, you got something really nasty that you did not choose. It's not as if you chose to move next door knowing full well what goes on in my business. All of a sudden, the value of your house has dropped, and you haven't been compensated for it at all.

I agree that zoning and restrictions should be regulated at a local level so that multiple solutions can arise, but it seems like trying to involve neighbors in contract negotiations becomes quite complicated quickly. The guy 2 houses down has seen his house fall in value too, although maybe not quite so much. The guy 20 houses away might still smell things on a bad day, so he's affected a little bit too, should he be included in negotiations as well?

I agree with what you're saying for the most part. I think, though, that people want to get along and social pressure can work for a lot of these situations. Regulations do not always work in your favor, though, and do not always protect people.

For example, where I live in Cleveland, there used to be a rule that policeman (and I think most civil servants) had to live inside the city limits to work there. Once they removed the regulation, these workers sold their homes and left. The property value has dropped considerably as a result.

> what right do you have to run a foul smelling eyesore right beside the property where I'm attempting to raise a family?

He has every right to do this. Why do you assume that your family is more important than his tannery?

The regulations against things like tannery in an apartment are only there so that you can, when e.g. choosing a place to raise your family, find a place that will suit your requirements. It's like labels on food. You want something without sugar? You go and find something labeled "sugar-free". Regulations are there only to help you choose what you want. You don't look at a sugar drink and then ask "what rights does a food company have to put sugar in my drink when I'm trying to stay on keto?".

You could argue that this question has been discussed before, and that that is the reason why there are laws against noxious businesses in populated areas. If you want to operate that tannery of yours you had better have a good case and make it.

If it's just your right against theirs, that is the short path to "direct action", and you cannot have that in a civilized society.

You could also argue that you have the right to operate that tannery of yours but choose not to exercise it out of consideration of the people who will suffer from the stench. That would be the aristocratic viewpoint, argued eloquently by Ernst Jünger in the "Ledge at Masirah".

Either way, there is such a thing of society, and anyone arguing cleanly has to take that into account.

That's why we have zoning, so tanners can go tan hides and residential areas remain for residing.

It's like y'all are trying to reinvent practices long derived from observation and common sense. If you don't like a property's zoning, then don't buy it or go through the process to change the zoning.

As HarryHirsch says, no he absolutely does not have that right. Zoning is far from a new invention, it's been around since the industrial revolution at least.

I'm honestly shocked that people apparently would want to live in the kind of an environment where at any second the property next door could be turned into a tannery. How could anyone have confidence in their property's value in a society where that was allowed?

There is more than one to solve social problems. Centralized, violent, compulsory action (government) is one way, but there are others. Opposing "the government solution" is not the same thing as denying the problem or refusing to fix it.

How are zoning regulations "violent"?

It's a standard libertarian meme. Resist the government long enough and eventually - eventually might take years - someone wearing a gun will come and arrest you. Since they're arresting you with superior arms to the point of perhaps pointing them at you, this means doing so is violent, hence everything the government ever does is 'backed by violence', hence everything they ever do to limit you in any way is 'violen', no matter how minor that limitation might be. It's one of the more tortuous aspects of libertarian rhetoric.

This is one of those ideas that became a meme because it is unquestionably true. Ideas which are true tend to spread quickly. And, regarding this specific example, it's ludicrous to claim that it might take years if you violate zoning regulations. It would be more like hours.

Ideas which are true tend to spread quickly.

Nonsense. History is full of true ideas getting pounded flat. Sensationalist journalism is more effective than true journalism. So on and so forth. If "true ideas spread quickly", then religion would be dead in the water, all around the world.

And seriously, hours between doing some tanning and getting arrested for violation of zoning laws!? Zoning law violation rarely ends up in arrests in the first place - you get fined, then if you don't pay your fines, down the track they'll start the process.

> History is full of true ideas getting pounded flat.

That is not the logical complement of what I said. I only said that true ideas tend to spread quickly, which is obviously true. True ideas which were pounded flat are not counterexamples, because I'm talking about tendency.

It is a counterexample, because clearly untrue ideas also spread quickly, and history shows that untrue ideas stick far more easily - pursuing reason requires a lot of effort.

That's still not a logical complement of what I said. I didn't say that only true ideas tend to spread quickly, or that they tend to spread more quickly than untrue ideas.

Really? The whole point of saying the statement at all is that 'true' ideas have this feature than other ideas don't have as much of. Now you say that non-true ideas spread just as quickly, the statement is utterly pointless.

If the 'trueness' of the idea is irrelevant to how quickly it spreads, as you've just said here, then your statement becomes "Ideas tend to spread quickly, regardless of their truth", which is pointless given the context.

Read closely. All I said is that the particular idea in question spread quickly because it is true and because true ideas tend to spread quickly. It is completely irrelevant if non-true ideas also spread quickly. What I said still holds.

> This is one of those ideas that became a meme because it is unquestionably true

It sounds more like a rhetorical truism than a "true idea". Of course the police enforce the laws, that's what they're there for.

> It sounds more like a rhetorical truism

And yet, people frequently dismiss it as a "libertarian meme." One doesn't have to look far on the Internet to find someone that will deny that government enforcement of things like taxation or zoning regulations do not constitute violence.

What I meant by truism is that it may be a logically consistent position given the initial assumptions, but it brings no additional knowledge. If you accept the government=violence condition, then ANY law, rule or regulation is upheld by violence.

When you don't pay alimony: violence. When you jaywalk: violence. When you litter: violence. When you wear shorts instead of trunks at the swimming pool: violence...

OK, great, we've established that there is violence everywhere. But what has that brought us? Nothing.

Really, it depends on whether you're using the English definition of 'violence' or the libertarian definition of the word.

I'm just using the definition that seems to be the first one listed in many English dictionaries.

"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence?redirect=no

"Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing" http://www.answers.com/topic/violence

"exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Your last two definitions don't fit unless you've a priori decided any government action is abuse - which is the wrong way to define things. Your first definition is so belaboured and tortuous that it sounds like libertarians have been at it.

And it's interesting to note that none of your definitions allow for natural phenomenon to be violent, yet we quite naturally talk about things like violent storms in English.

How are they not violent? What would happen if you really did set up a loud assembly in a Manhattan apartment?

> What you are arguing against is called zoning and the legality of that is very well settled.

Indeed. I am seriously arguing against zoning, or rather, against the necessity and wisdom of government (i.e. violent, compulsory) action to solve this problem.

The alternative would be a society not based on the law, but on connections and reputation - real-life examples would be a Brazilian favela, Wikipedia, the Iceland of the Sagas. Not something I'd prefer.

That is not the alternative. Depending on your definition of "law," it doesn't necessarily imply government. In fact, a lot of functioning "law" today is non-governmental (one reason for this is the unsurprisingly high cost and inefficiency of the government's conflict mediation system). But moreover, even regardless of your definition of "law," it's naive to assume that the way government works isn't "based on connections and reputation" in just as bad of a way as you expect a government-less society might be.

(I am sorry: I accidentally down-voted you on my iPhone when I meant to up vote you. I leave this explicit note to make certain you know you should have two more points on this comment than you do.)

Every lease I've seen of my group of friends prohibits subletting without express permission of the landlord/owner. It's already the standard in NYC. Realistically, every AirBNB within a rental unit in NYC is likely violating the terms of their lease.

It might say that but is that an actual enforceable provision?

Yes, absolutely. My family has evicted tenants from some of our units for repeatedly violating this clause of their leases.

It seems in NYC at least, the landlord can't refuse to let someone sublet so long as they are properly notified and the sublet is reasonable. The way most leases are written though, it makes it sound as if the landlord has the final say vs it defaulting to permitted (with notification) unless the landlord makes a good case why it should be denied.

> I live in San Francisco, where airbnb is legal (as far as I know)

Its generally not (its illegal in San Francisco to rent a unit for less than thirty days in a residential building with more than four units.) New York and San Francisco are the two US locations that I've seen the most news coverage for AirBnB's legal issues in.

> yet my property owner explicitly prohibits "short term subleasing," effectively banning airbnb rentals. No law or government action required, no criminals made, no taxpayer-funded enforcement, and no problem.

All contracts, and especially lease agreements where the ultimate enforcement action is eviction, depend very much on law, government action, and taxpayer-funded enforcement action.

So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be), then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions? Seems like a logical fallacy to me. How about we let people transact peacefully and deal with the problems on a case-by-case basis instead of lumping everyone under the same law that allows no room for exploration.

> So because there is dependence on some monopolistic entity for contract disputes (there really shouldn't be)

Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set of promises that lacks the intent necessary to form a contract.

> then that gives justification for that entity to intrude on voluntary actions?

Yes, using the threat of action by other people to get what you want gives those other people a right to a voice in what you can use that threat to support.

> Seems like a logical fallacy to me.

Subjective appearance can say as much about the one seeing as the thing being seen.

> How about we let people transact peacefully and deal with the problems on a case-by-case basis instead of lumping everyone under the same law that allows no room for exploration.

Enforcement of existing laws, civil and criminal, is done on a case-by-case basis by actual people; even if something creates a civil or criminal cause of action, the party (the prosecutorial authority of the state, in criminal cases) with the cause of action may choose not exercise it, and jury nullification is thing, so, largely, what you call for is the status quo.

If you think the specific parameters of the existing law are drawn incorrectly, you probably ought to address your specific problem rather than calling for abstract features that already exist in the current system.

> Its definitional: if you aren't seeking the threat of state enforcement to enforce a set of mutual promises, you don't have a contract, you have a mutual set of promises that lacks the intent necessary to form a contract.

That is one definition, but not the only. And I'm sure there are creative ways to enforce contracts without State force--third-party arbitration could be an option, social pressure, etc. Most contract disputes I've been involved with have been resolved without the need for legal action. There are plenty of social dynamics that come into play.

> Enforcement of existing laws, civil and criminal, is done on a case-by-case basis by actual people; even if something creates a civil or criminal cause of action, the party (the prosecutorial authority of the state, in criminal cases) with the cause of action may choose not exercise it, and jury nullification is thing, so, largely, what you call for is the status quo.

This is true, but I don't think it's working. Looking at the current prison population, something is deeply flawed. Are most jurors even aware of jury nullification?

> If you think the specific parameters of the existing law are drawn incorrectly, you probably ought to address your specific problem rather than calling for abstract features that already exist in the current system.

Fair enough.

I'll add: third-party arbitration is already quite common, and in many cases is very deliberately used to avoid the government alternative. The definition proposed by that commenter indicates to me that he or she is simply unaware of the existence and commonness of arbitration.

Anywhere outside Hackernews, mandatory arbitration is considered a way to prevent trial by jury. It's safe to say that "trial by jury" got written into the constitution is because the drafters had experience with arbitration and were aware that at times it can be seriously unfair and inequitable to one of the parties.

What do you think a representational government is except the exertion of social pressure backed by force?

One key difference is that the representational government's monopoly is backed by force.

By monopolistic entity, do you mean society? If you don't want to live by the rules of the society you are in, you are free to withdraw yourself and find somewhere else without such onerous restrictions. Likely you'll find it much worse place to live.

I don't mean society. I mean a very small portion of society called "government."

> If it's your own property, go right ahead.

Yep, this is the problem with services like AirBnB and Uber. It's embraces a purely selfish attitude in individuals with blatant disregard for the rest of the community.

How does Uber harm the community?

The problem with Uber isn't necessarily, that it harms the community, but that it unfairly competes with the taxi monopoly. Now, your first reaction might be to say "well that's the taxi monopoly's problem" but there is more to it. The taxi monopoly is a bargain struck between municipalities and service providers. The bargain is that taxi cabs get monopoly protection in return for their agreeing to function as an extension of the public transit system. As part of the bargain, taxi companies agree to do things that they wouldn't do in a free market--agree to drop people off anywhere in the city, agree to serve poor neighborhoods, etc. If the municipalities allow Uber to operate without those constraints, they are going back on their end of the bargain.

Maybe the right answer is to end the bargain entirely--buy out the medallions and end the monopoly protection, and let everyone compete on a level playing field. But allowing Uber to ignore taxi regulations while still imposing them on the cab companies is not fair.

> The taxi monopoly is a bargain struck between municipalities and service providers.

Indeed. It's an agreement of which Uber and its customers are not members.

Seriously. Just the other night I had an Uber ride from a guy, he had previously spent years working as a single taxi operator. Within the past year on Uber, he's been able to expand out on his own, and now owns 6 additional cars which he leases to other Uber drivers. He's also training all of them on how to do the same thing, and one of them is soon going to likely strike out on his own with 2 cars to start. These are small, independent business people, who would not have these opportunities otherwise.

Uber is different in that (in my mind) they do NOT break the law, nor entice others to do so. The law around taxi based operations is on 'hailing fares' - Which involves a taxi driving and seeing you with your hand sticking out and picks you up. Uber cannot do that, its not a taxi. Its a on demand, car pickup service with licensed drivers.

Now, on the other hand- I think that lyft would be a better comparison to airbnb. I believe they let users without a taxi license do the same thing as uber.

It doesn't. Some people just don't like people making money peacefully without the government's permission.

"go right ahead" Yeah! My neighbours can go fuck themselves! Always complaining about my 3am parties and my friends from the Silencers Are a Crime Motorbike Club. It's my turn to be selfish!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com